here, I cite from a recent New York Times article on naturopathy in Colorado [see 001., below]; then, I muse [see 002., below]:
001. Dan Frosch reports in "Colorado Faces a Fight Over Naturopathy" [saved 2011-02-21]:
"in Colorado [...] no regulatory system for naturopaths exists [...] Marc Cooper [...] sits on the board of the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Doctors, which has proposed a bill this year that would allow naturopaths to get licenses and create training and treatment requirements for practitioners [...] 'once somebody fully understands what our medical training is and what we actually do, they look at us and say, Oh, my gosh, I didn’t realize that' he said [...] naturopaths [...] 'go to naturopathic medical school' [...per] Karen Howard, executive director of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...with] completion of a four-year accredited, specialized school, passing an exam and a certain amount of clinical training [...and] contend that it is dangerously easy to get a certificate that shows expertise in naturopathy and people need some way of discerning between a knowledgeable naturopath and a quack [...] the Colorado proposal would prohibit people who did not attend one of the schools from calling themselves naturopathic doctors [...the medical field says] 'they want to diagnose medical conditions, and we don’t believe they are qualified and that they have the education to do that [...and] there is little evidence naturopathy is either safe or effective [...] said Diana Protopapa [...of] the Colorado Medical Society [I agree with CMS]."
Note: wow, the quacks [naturopathy] are calling their fellow quacks [naturopathy] quacks and denying that they are all birds of the same feather.
002. now, I'm quite familiar with the requirements and contents of naturopathy -- that is what this blog talks about -- so lets talk about it, broadly [I went to one of those AANP-affiliated schools, I'm quite familiar]:
so, as the article states, once somebody "fully understands" naturopathy, you would say "oh, my gosh." That is not because you'd be impressed, though. It would be because you'd be wide-eyed with naturopathy's absurdity. But, you'd actually have to have expertise in science, medicine, skepticism, and propaganda.
NYTs didn't report on that central absurdity, and that's quite a bit of charity for naturopathy -- to such an extent that this article reads like a press release. Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that NDs are medically trained at all, they are naturopathically trained. Where else is an article of faith equated with a scientific fact, and archaic science-ejected ideas called science-based?
the exam and specialized schooling for NDs / NMDs is interesting: it requires that the hugely science-ejected be falsely labeled science and medically relevant, and it also requires that you disguise that reality.
and naturopathy's knowledge is interesting to the extent that it is quackery overall: claiming as safe and effective the truly science-ejected archaic.
the reporter provides no accurate context regarding these realities about the naturopathic, and naturopaths won't either, while those who are knowledgeable about it watch the absurdity increase its market.
people will still be buying the product under false premises: that which is placebo, like homeopathy, is sold as effective while truly science-destroyed, and that which is science-exterior will be sold as within a science-context even though not [their essential sectarian vitalism, supernaturalism and kind].
this goes for naturopathy clinically and in terms of its educational apparatus.
as I've said before, naturopathy is licensed falsehood.